A person involved in snow removal was interviewed on the televised news. He said that he can deal with the top two to three feet of snow. Everything below that had to be "pried off."

Consider glaciation. Heavy snow falls. The weight of it compresses the lower layers of snow into ice. When subsequent snowfall repeats the process and the accumulated snow and ice reach a certain height, then the weight of the accumulation applies pressure on the mass sending it on the move like pressure at the end of a tube of toothpaste sends the toothpaste to the opposite end of the tube – hence a glacier on the move.

While some scientists say that we are in a period of global warming, others say that per the normal freeze/thaw cycles of planet Earth, we are entering the next Ice Age. Why, I came across the opinion of one scientist who claims that were are still in the last Ice Age.

Even the adherents to the global warming school of thought admit that global warming will cause certain regions of the world to go into an Ice Age due to the disruption of the thermohaline circulation of the oceans.

There are other things to factor in like the belief that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster has influenced the weather thus resulting in Pacific Ocean superstorms like Typhoons Haiyan and Nuri. Nuri went on to morph into a record-breaking Bering Sea storm and was blamed for causing the Arctic blasts that brought unprecedented cold air to most of North America and the Buffalo area, in particular, with the 6+ feet of "lake effect" snowfall.

Now, the snow in Buffalo is melting. If it does not drain away to any appreciable extent before the next snowstorm and before it refreezes, then it will add considerably to the existing accumulation of ice that may be the inception of a new glacier. Even worse is the prospect of rain being soaked up by the snow like a sponge; that, too, may freeze and contribute to the formation of a new glacier

In any case, in the absence of a new glacier and in the absence of a prolonged new Ice Age, if the Buffalo area has just two such snowfalls, as just happened, back-to-back, then I can see it making sense for the local residents there to abandon the area.

As far as the beginnings of a glacier goes you are going to have to look farther north than Buffalo New York.

Your response may very well be correct.

Then again, it may be based on rules and assumptions of the past.

Planet Earth has an unprecedented population of 7,000,000,000, and according to the "Prophets of Doom," the population explosion coincided with the use of fossil fuels some 150 years ago.

In addition to the effects on the environment of fossil fuels and of an exploding population, you also have the nuclear age, about 70 years old, that has introduced into the environment radioactive isotopes which probably haven't been around since the inception of the universe, or, at least, of planet Earth.

So, instead of a Great Lake like Lake Erie being created by a glacier, its entire contents may go toward the creation of a glacier, one originating in Buffalo.

Six feet of snow doesn't equate to a glacier. Head over to Saskatchewan over the winter, you'll see snow.

If there was glacier building going on, it would be happening in the North and those Glaciers would spread to the South scouring the Earth as they progressed across the continent.

You are not witnessing Glacier growth in NY, just lots of snow for the given area.

I never stated that six feet of snow equates to a glacier. Please do not twist my words.

I presented the possibility that it may be the start of a glacier. Everything has to have a starting point. For example, a fertilized egg is not a baby, but it is the start of one.

You mention the snow in Saskatchewan. I do not doubt that there is a great deal of snow there, but if it is of the very dry, powdery/dusty kind, then it will blow off peaked roofs with no significant accumulation on those roofs. Such was not the case in Buffalo. The snow there had sufficient moisture content such that it was able to accumulate on peaked roofs and cause some of those roofs to collapse severely damaging lower levels. That extra moisture in the Buffalo snowfall also makes the snow denser, and, so, it is more susceptible to being compressed into ice.

Both you and Quilligain allude to glacier formation to the "North." Well, correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't the North Pole shifted from where it had been recently, and aren't some scientists claiming that the North and South Poles are imminently due to shift places as they have done on numerous prior occasions over the course of history? Would this not have oddball effects on weather/climate patterns? Moreover, who is to say that a glacier cannot form in segments with one forming in Quebec City, another in Montreal, another in Buffalo, and another in Northern New Jersey with all of them eventually merging into one glacier?

I just saw a scene on this morning's televised news of a river in the Buffalo area with much ice floating on it and with much melted snow flowing in it with the danger of flooding. There is also the prospect of ice jams in that river which make the prospect of flooding all the worse.

Imagine water from the river flooding the streets of the area, and, before it drains adequately, it freezes over. This will compound matters, for sure. If this happens over and over again, you may very well have the makings of a glacier.

You have to keep an eye on the extent to which accumulations of snow and ice are gone before the next snowfall in the Buffalo area... and the next... and the next... and the next. Now, if there are still snow and ice around the area when next autumn rolls around, then I'd say that you have some really big problems there. Who's to say that the area will get the normal summer temperatures in the 80s or 90s? What if the temperatures during the summer reach only the 50s or 60s?

When I was a child in New York City, temperatures were normal, but, during the winter, mountains of snow were created by snow plows and those mountains were so high and massive that remnants of them were still around in early June even though they were blacken with dirt thusly absorbing heat from the sun.

Going back further in history, ice supplies for New York City came by boat from the glaciers to the north, and there wasn't so much melting of that ice to make distribution and sale of it impractical in summer months... my point being: if ice is massive enough, forget about getting rid of it in its entirety over the summer. BTW, I just read that there was a time way back when icebergs floated as far south as Florida.

For now, what is being stated here in this thread is just discussion and is "neither here nor there."

However, one bottom line remains: there are so many differing opinions among the "experts," and there are so many factors in play that it is virtually impossible to predict what may happen next in the future.

You have to keep an eye on the extent to which accumulations of snow and ice are gone before the next snowfall in the Buffalo area... and the next... and the next... and the next. Now, if there are still snow and ice around the area when next autumn rolls around, then I'd say that you have some really big problems there.

I just learned from "CBS This Morning" that there is going to be more lake effect snow in Buffalo tomorrow. No projected accumulation was mentioned.

As already noted, we have to keep an eye on how much prior snow and ice accumulation clears out before the next round of precipitation.

I have an interest in this because someone I know relocated, not so long ago, to the Finger Lakes region of New York State. She was not within the zone of abnormally high snowfall that befell Buffalo, but she was not that far away either.

That is correct upstate regions used the canals to bring down ice to nyc and even far away cities as far as the Midwest. I am not here to say one thing or the other but back in the war of 1812 didn't the great lakes freeze over allowing for American forces to walk into Canada? Or at least that was the plan? There were some pretty harsh winters back then and even the great lakes freezing over but nobody thought new glaciers were forming or that we were in dire straights it was just another day of life for people back then. If such severe things happened back then and they are happening again now maybe it isn't so bad?